Suppr超能文献

在一项在线调查研究中解释安慰剂效应:“巴甫洛夫”有共鸣吗?

Explaining placebo effects in an online survey study: Does 'Pavlov' ring a bell?

机构信息

Health, Medical and Neuropsychology unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0247103. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247103. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Despite the increasing knowledge about placebo effects and their beneficial impact on treatment outcomes, strategies that explicitly employ these mechanisms remain scarce. To benefit from placebo effects, it is important to gain better understanding in how individuals want to be informed about placebo effects (for example about the underlying mechanisms that steer placebo effects). The main aim of this study was to investigate placebo information strategies in a general population sample by assessing current placebo knowledge, preferences for different placebo explanations (built around well-known mechanisms involved in placebo effects), and attitudes and acceptability towards the use of placebo effects in treatment.

DESIGN

Online survey.

SETTING

Leiden, The Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

444 participants (377 completers), aged 16-78 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Current placebo knowledge, placebo explanation preferences, and placebo attitudes and acceptability.

RESULTS

Participants scored high on current placebo knowledge (correct answers: M = 81.15%, SD = 12.75). Comparisons of 8 different placebo explanations revealed that participants preferred explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations more than all other explanations (F(7, 368) = 3.618, p = .001). Furthermore, attitudes and acceptability for placebos in treatment varied for the type of the condition (i.e. more acceptant for psychological complaints) and participants indicated that physicians do not always have to be honest while making use of placebo effects for therapeutic benefit.

CONCLUSION

Our results brought forth new evidence in placebo information strategies, and indicated that explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations were most preferred. These results can be insightful to construct placebo information strategies for both clinical context and research practices.

摘要

目的

尽管人们对安慰剂效应及其对治疗结果的有益影响有了越来越多的了解,但明确利用这些机制的策略仍然很少。为了从安慰剂效应中获益,重要的是更好地了解个体希望如何了解安慰剂效应(例如,了解引导安慰剂效应的潜在机制)。本研究的主要目的是通过评估当前的安慰剂知识、对不同安慰剂解释(围绕涉及安慰剂效应的已知机制构建)的偏好,以及对在治疗中使用安慰剂效应的态度和可接受性,来研究一般人群样本中的安慰剂信息策略。

设计

在线调查。

地点

荷兰莱顿。

参与者

444 名参与者(377 名完成者),年龄 16-78 岁。

主要观察指标

当前的安慰剂知识、安慰剂解释偏好以及安慰剂态度和可接受性。

结果

参与者在当前的安慰剂知识方面得分较高(正确答案:M = 81.15%,SD = 12.75)。对 8 种不同的安慰剂解释的比较表明,参与者更喜欢基于大脑机制和积极期望的解释,而不是其他所有解释(F(7,368)= 3.618,p =.001)。此外,对治疗中安慰剂的态度和可接受性因病情类型而异(即对心理投诉更可接受),参与者表示,医生在利用安慰剂效应获得治疗益处时并不总是必须诚实。

结论

我们的研究结果提供了新的证据,表明基于大脑机制和积极期望的解释最受欢迎。这些结果可以为临床和研究实践中的安慰剂信息策略提供参考。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29b1/7951811/086f44cb250d/pone.0247103.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验